While I support MdKnightR, I say (again) a little care about how we treat our environment and deal with our resources and such cannot be wrong or useless, regardless whether we're actually causing a global warming, cooling, or nothing.

Let me try and put this simply: pumping vast amounts of Carbon dioxide, monoxide, NOx and misc sulphur compounds into the atmosphere is not good for the environment.

I agree with Darth InSidious and even if it does not matter to the environment, it cannot be good for us to breathe the crap we are pumping into the atmosphere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Jones

While I support MdKnightR, I say (again) a little care about how we treat our environment and deal with our resources and such cannot be wrong or useless, regardless whether we're actually causing a global warming, cooling, or nothing.

I too agree with Ray Jones. We are shown evidence from both sides saying that there is global warming or there is not global warming. While I do believe in global warming, I think both sides go to the extreme. A little common sense could make all the differences. There is no need to wreck the world economy, but at the same time a few preventive measures could make all of us healthier and safer.

This graph plots "data" going back to 2500 BC, yet they only show three actual temperatures. One now, one 1998, and one in 1607 that has a question mark next to it. What are the values for all the other points?

Where did this data come from? What methods were used? Can they care to give any references? Just one? What scientific peer review forum was this examined in?

How on earth are they plotting this curve with data points (with no values mind you) that are in some cases half a millennia apart.

They use lots of quantitative terms like "a few eruptions" and "very cold".

The graph tries to show the timing of eruptions to temperature change. Then in the conclusion box there is a comment about solar irradiation that is completely unrelated to anything on the chart.

But my biggest question is why the hell are there Christian references on a supposedly scientific chart???

This graph is, to put it mildly, ass.

And who are these guys? All I could find was that Cliff Harris is an insurance law graduate and devout Christian (thus the Bible references on the chart) who believes the Bible provides lots of clues for predicting the weather. And Randy Mann started on an internship at the KCRA-TV weather department in Sacramento at the age of 15. Since then, he's provided on-air weather forecasts. He is educated as a geographer. Their joint business helps others profit during times of extreme weather.

"I do believe in a period of extreme global warming. That will be in the tribulation period. That's when the real global warming will come in," Harris said. "Those of us who are believers, we're looking forward to it."

"I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself," Harris said.

All the Christian events on that chart are documented to have occurred, no matter whether you're a Christian, Hindu, Atheist, or a freaking Pastafarian. However, I have to agree with your wondering where this data came from - the National Weather Service didn't exactly exist back in 2500 B.C.

Can you think of better ones? They're easily recognizable historical landmarks in the sense that they are stories that a lot of people are familiar with. A lot of the things we take as history are based on shaky archaeological evidence, biblical or not...while it's resonably certain we're right in a lot of cases there's no way to be entirely sure. The first reliably recorded battle didn't even take place until 1457 B.C., so historical evidence for those times is shaky no matter where you look.

Can you think of better ones? They're easily recognizable historical landmarks in the sense that they are stories that a lot of people are familiar with.

But they aren't historical landmarks. In the case of the exodus, currently there is little historical evidence for it apart from the Bible. In the case of Jesus, the date they give is conjecture since the accounts of the event are at odds.

But they aren't historical landmarks. In the case of the exodus, currently there is little historical evidence for it apart from the Bible. In the case of Jesus, the date they give is conjecture since the accounts of the event are at odds.

There are minor disagreements among the four canonical gospels. Nevertheless, the birth of Christ is the basis of our year-counting system, so is as good a point as any to give as a point of reference. That said, putting it on when you've got numbers alongside is a little redundant.

As for the Exodus, not only is it difficult to prove at present, 1100 BC is woefully late. Given that one of the later dates for the Exodus from Egypt tends to be the reign of Baenre Merynetjeru Merenptah Hetephermaat, who died in around 1203 BC...Let's not even go into the First Intermediate Period/Old Kingdom dates some give.

In any case, a stela carved in his reign (known as the 'Israel stela') marks the first mention of a nation of Israel (and its destruction by Merenptah in a campaign in the Levant)...Presumably one of the periodic razing that the Promised Land went through.

Also, the New Kingdom would be coming to a close in Egypt, and her power would be waning. David's life is further given by those who bother to work out the dates of Biblical figures as 1037-967 BC, so to conclude...this guy is wackily, crazily off about the Exodus. (It's irrelevance to a chart about global warming aside. )

Dude, it's just random events to let fellow people get a prespective for time. It doesn't mean that just because he believes in religion that the graph is totally wrong. That just seems ad homein. His graph may still be correct.

The fact that it may have lots of inaccuraies not be is unrelated to the events on the timetline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Onion

"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.

There are many factors to be considered for (no-)Global-warming. We have fires, like vulcanos or forest fires(which also occure naturaly from time to time), the current distance to the sun...and of course also us humans with all the carbon dioxide we produce with cars, breathing, etc.
I don't want to say the Earth is not warming up right now, because it obviously is, but the point the chart is making, is that, like most things, the earth's temperature is not a constant, and that there will evbentually be a time of global cooling again.

For easier access here is my little modding page, even though it is still under construction -> click here

Why, exactly, am I to relax? It's one thing to use a non-sequitur reasoning in stating that climate change has happened before, and as such humans can't have any impact on it. That I understand, and a lot of people even buy into it. It almost sounds logical on the surface, as if the first person convicted of hacking into a bank account and stealing a million dollars from it saying that 'oh, c'mon, we've had untold sums of money stolen from banks before, and never, in the history of banks, has it been the fault of anyone sitting behind a computer. Yet now all of a sudden it's my fault?' Really, it is cute reasoning, and you have to admire people who are bold enough to actually use it.

However, I honestly do not understand it when people say, with a totally straight face, that since global warming is part of a natural cycle, it's not as dangerous as the fearmongers will have us believe. I totally do not understand the logic behind the statement 'Please Relax' next to a chart stating that climate change has happened before. It's as nonsensical as a relief worker telling a civilian in Rwanda that he needn't worry because after all, wars are a natural part of humanity, which has survived thousands of them already (this complete with hand-drawn chart from nonsensical source, showing the armed conflicts from 2500 BCE up to now). Would she be comforted?

Landslides are but one example. Global warming causes an increase in precipitation. An increase in precipitation causes an increase in the number of landslides. We guys in the Norwegian Red Cross are currently working on a project to help internally displaced in Colombia, many of which have built makeshift towns in hills around the cities. These hills are dangerous enough as they are, but with increasing precipitation, landslides are becoming far more common, and you can imagine the death toll this causes. I'm glad I can now tell them not to worry, because it's happenend before. Likewise with my municipality here at home - never mind they are spending hundreds of millions of crowns securing roads against landslides, and repairing the damage they cause, now that they're becoming more frequent, as predicted by scientists. Forget that they have taken lives. Doesn't matter - it's happened before.

Quote:

There are many factors to be considered for (no-)Global-warming.

True. You're wrong to say humans have no part, but many forget that we are equally wrong in saying humans are the sole cause of global warming. But you have to be careful with which factors you blame.

[quote]We have fires, like vulcanos or forest fires(which also occure naturaly from time to time), the current distance to the sun...and of course also us humans with all the carbon dioxide we produce with cars, breathing, etc.
I don't want to say the Earth is not warming up right now, because it obviously is, but

Quote:

the point the chart is making, is that, like most things, the earth's temperature is not a constant, and that there will evbentually be a time of global cooling again.

And as I said above, that should not comfort anyone the slightest. Rapid global cooling would be just as damaging as it, too, brings with it all sorts of unwanted consequences. The problem isn't just that the Earth is warming - it's that it's doing it very quickly. At least I live in a first world country that can afford to cut some funding to other fields to keep us safe. It's worse for the Colombians, North Koreans, and Indians.

Quote:

Whenever solar irradiation has decreased and volcanic eruptions have increased, global temperature suddenly plummet, often within weeks or months.

I'm waiting for a chart that actually proves this. A chart with some generic volcano eruption icons and no hints of effort at showing solar activity... is not enough.

Quote:

This chart is awesome beyond words.

Agreed.

Quote:

Why the hell are there Christian references on a supposedly scientific chart???

Many global warming sceptics and deniers are right-wing. Many right-wingers are active Christians. It's called catering to the audience.

Come to think of it, I'd actually almost like a chart that shows a clear Co2-global warming correlation, complete with such references as 'Darwin's theory of evolution published', 'Pope admits evolution is true', and 'Galileo proves world is round'. Would make the whole chart appear less serious and credible, but would be so sweet .

Edit

Oh, and:

Quote:

"I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself," Harris said.

The Bible tells humans to be stewards of the Earth. He can't even get his own mythology straight.

Humans play a part in global warming, though the extent of our part is still very largely conjecture. Many people who's research has been used to show global warming actually have come out against "human caused" global climate change. The effects of our cars belching out CO emissions don't equate to ONE volcanic eruption. Is global climate change a big deal? Absolutely, Global climate change(I hate the term "global warming" as it is too easy to prove that it isn't actually getting warmer) does occur. Whether human caused or not, preparations for it are essential. Just as polar reversals are an important aspect of the earth's life cycle, so too are the changes in our climate. We should be aware of them, but not waste our efforts in areas that have little to no effect on the global climate. An example of this is the "Save the rainforest" movements. While old growth trees do produce more oxygen than new trees, they do not however produce more oxygen than the same area of grass. To be fair, the same area of grass however does not do as much to prevent erosion as the trees.

It is fair to say that we should not pollute our environment. I love to head out to a lake and fish. I'll eat what I catch... Many of the so called right wingers like to be out in the woods hunting/fishing/camping etc. Be careful about painting with that wide brush. A lot of the right wingers are the ones out there cleaning up the trash left by left wingers.

There are several references on the chart that have NOTHING to do with the bible. Basically it was an easy as hominem for you... They could have used something along the lines of Julius Cesar becomes emperor of Rome. Fewer people have an idea of when that is... well maybe fewer in the US.

And no, I'm not a right wing religious nut(in fact I'm an Agnostic formerly athiest, but leaning more towards Budhism.... guess I'm just confused).

However, I honestly do not understand it when people say, with a totally straight face, that since global warming is part of a natural cycle, it's not as dangerous as the fearmongers will have us believe. I totally do not understand the logic behind the statement 'Please Relax' next to a chart stating that climate change has happened before. It's as nonsensical as a relief worker telling a civilian in Rwanda that he needn't worry because after all, wars are a natural part of humanity, which has survived thousands of them already (this complete with hand-drawn chart from nonsensical source, showing the armed conflicts from 2500 BCE up to now). Would she be comforted?.

Agreed. So we should relax because the global warming is anatural process that'll keep happening independently of our actions? Call me an optimistic, but I won't.

The effects of our cars belching out CO emissions don't equate to ONE volcanic eruption.

That is true, humans don't even compare nature's natural CO2 emission. That doesn't mean though, that we should go on like we did. Even though I am kind of a global warming sceptic, I am happy to see , that a lot of progress was made in alternate energy/fuels, energy saving buildings, recycling, filtering of poluted ground-water, etc... over the last few years. Even if we are not the biggest impact on global climate change, I don't see any reason why it would be positiv to keep poluting the planet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eiganjo

There are many factors to be considered for (no-)Global-warming.

True. You're wrong to say humans have no part, but ...

I didn't say humans have no part. I'll quote myself real quick:

Quote:

...and of course also us humans with all the carbon dioxide we produce with cars, breathing, etc.

For easier access here is my little modding page, even though it is still under construction -> click here

C'mon, Prime. That doesn't negate what they have to say. Afterall, you've heard of the saying "even a paranoid has enemies". Just b/c they identify themselves as combating what they see as unchallenged information from the "mainstream" doesn't mean they lack credibility. At least they are more honest than the mainstream media which is demonstrably liberal/left wing but loathe to admit to it. Even the BBC's own internal investigator's pronounced their news reportage as left leaning (thus hardly unbiased).

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Actually Totenkopf, he kinda has a point. I mean would you trust Michael Moore to give credible evidence? Or more directly related would you trust Al Gore's site to provide unbiassed information on this subject?

The problem with many of the credible sources though is this: How do you get more funding for researching human caused global climate change after you prove that humans have little to no effect on it?

The problem, though, is determining who is truly credible. Everyone has some degree of bias, even if we aren't aware of it. Some bias is very transparent (Michael Moore) and others seemingly less so (pick your favorite news outlet: Fox/BBC/etc..). I think that Reagan had a saying: trust, but verify. It's not really enough to say "oh, he's fighting liberal/conservative bias in the media, must just be bs". Ultimately, though, who we choose to see as credible will probably expose some of our own biases.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

The warming is a natural event that appears in cycles , but temperture takes a long time to go up .
If you look at the beginning of the graph , one of the first peaks takes its time to go up and down again .
Look more at the end with lots of human activity and you see that goes rapiditly .
That's what is wrong , not the warming persÚ , but the speed at wich we're pushing it .

If it goes to fast , animals don't have time to adapt , they die.
If it goes to fast , most people will die of the effects of the warming.

Its just up to us to try and cut down our fumes and toxis , to let the warming go more at a natural pase.

Sure volcanos make the warming go faster at times , but humies didn't make vulcanos ... we don't controle volcanos , they go off as nature demands .

QFE

I was going to post a long post, but I saw this. Took the words right out of my mouth. Bravo.

Keep in mind this only covers about 4000 years... Also keep in mind that the increase in variation does not have an appreciable link to the human population. If you look at the graph itself(assuming that it is not ficticious) the variation has been increasing at a relatively steady rate(well possibly an exponential rate) for the full 4000 years. This would indicate that the increase has little to do with the fumes and toxins as that is a very new development.

If you have a grudge against vehicle emissions take it up with the line of reasoning following air quality and ground water toxins. Temperature variance as we see did not start with CFC usage, and it did not stop(or even slow down) with us instituting harsh vehicle emission regulations in the country with the most vehicle usage(not per capita, maybe, but we do have more vehicles on the road than any country). Air quality has improved(slightly) in places like LA(VERY slightly). And that is a very good thing. We need to clean up our air. Just not for global climate change purposes.

Also the site so easily dismissed by others on this board, used as it's reference NASA(JPL to be exact). I have a hard time calling that organization biassed on the matter.

There being so few data points does make me question how they know to fill in the shape of the rest of the chart. How do they have enough data to tell that it's truly representative of the world as a whole at those times?

Even overlooking that, there is a pretty drastically steepening in the last century or so.

Darth Insidious: The predicted time for the birth of Christ could vary by as much as 7 years, depending on what sources you consider to be credible. They don't really even know the time of year. The Bible doesn't normally date things by year, but by events going on in the world at the time, many of which we've lost the references to their reference event.

And the exodus, there are people that think they know which Pharaoh it was, but limiting it to within one lifetime, isn't the same as limiting it to a year. Those are some pretty inexact dates even if you place full faith in people's ability to guess which pharaoh it was.

C'mon, Prime. That doesn't negate what they have to say. Afterall, you've heard of the saying "even a paranoid has enemies". Just b/c they identify themselves as combating what they see as unchallenged information from the "mainstream" doesn't mean they lack credibility.

It doesn't. But why would I bother with an organization whose goal is not first and foremost to present the facts and allow the audience to judge for itself, but to counterattack other organizations. Why shouldn't I just go straight to the source? The article posted is so ridiculously biased that it should be disregarded out of hand. I would say the same thing if it was just as grossly left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

At least they are more honest than the mainstream media which is demonstrably liberal/left wing but loathe to admit to it.

They are no more honest than any source that attempts to forward leftist views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

The problem, though, is determining who is truly credible. Everyone has some degree of bias, even if we aren't aware of it.

In some cases it is. But in some cases, like this article and site, where their tagline advertises the fact that their goal is to forward right wing views, it is pretty damn obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

I think that Reagan had a saying: trust, but verify. It's not really enough to say "oh, he's fighting liberal/conservative bias in the media, must just be bs".

The first sentence is the important part. Instead of posting the article that has an obvious slant, why not go directly to the source of the information?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Keep in mind this only covers about 4000 years...

It doesn't. The only data it presents goes back to 1998.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Also the site so easily dismissed by others on this board, used as it's reference NASA(JPL to be exact). I have a hard time calling that organization biassed on the matter.

They why not go to the original source and cut out the obviously biased middleman and read what they are actually saying?

It doesn't. But why would I bother with an organization whose goal is not first and foremost to present the facts and allow the audience to judge for itself, but to counterattack other organizations. Why shouldn't I just go straight to the source? The article posted is so ridiculously biased that it should be disregarded out of hand. I would say the same thing if it was just as grossly left.

They are no more honest than any source that attempts to forward leftist views.

In some cases it is. But in some cases, like this article and site, where their tagline advertises the fact that their goal is to forward right wing views, it is pretty damn obvious.

The first sentence is the important part. Instead of posting the article that has an obvious slant, why not go directly to the source of the information?

Well, you're a little guilty of imposing your bias on them. Their tag line only claims to combat liberal media bias. It nowhere states that they wish to impose conservative/neo-con/facist/communist/liberatarian/ad nauseum views on anyone. That can only be inferred by a reader. Fact is, though, that we often have to read both the biased as well as the supposedly neutral to get a clearer picture of what's going on. Someone else's bias may force us to think about what we're reading in a different light (nevermind our own natural biases). So long as we don't restrict ourselves to just one slant when attempting to analyze what's before us (assuming we can suss the content of the original article out on our own), we can perhaps get a grip on what we're reading. Don't know about you, but most scientific/financial/etc literature can be so dry and cumbersome as to leave the layman with his head spinning. This then forces most of us to rely on a secondary source for the purposes of interpreting what we consume. Can you truly say that those people won't (consciuosly or otherwise) try to export their bias to us?

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Ok soooo from 2500 BC to 2007 AS THE TITLE OF THE GRAPH STATES, is not ABOUT 4000 years(ok ABOUT 4500 years, feel better?) Now are you done picking nits? Or do you wish to continue the strawman defense. Just because all of the points are not labeled does not mean that the data is not REPRESENTED. Admittedly I would prefer to have more data be present in the graph, but you cannot dismiss it outright. To me the scale of the graph looks like + or - 4║ f

Quote:

They why not go to the original source and cut out the obviously biased middleman and read what they are actually saying?

They summarized and QUOTED the original text, but you probably didn't even read enough of it to see. And judging by the fact that you didn't even know about the originating NASA link within, you just used the typical ad hominem attack that because it has right wing bias, it cannot be credible in any way. Well the BBC has left wing bias, CNN has left wing bias(if you don't believe me on that look at the Democratic presidential debate and their "Undecided" voters with pre approved questions), and I don't tell people not to trust them for information, I just tell them to ignore the bias, and go on the FACTS AS PRESENTED. To get a clear picture you should enlist left wing, centrist, and right wing sites, and somewhere in between you get a true picture.

I think the problem isn't really any "global warming". I mean, this last summer here in Germany was rather cold with only 2 weeks of normal summer temperatures.

The problem is a climatic change, causing warmer winters, and colder summers, or vice versa somewhere else. Basically said: the local weather is changing. It does that all the time, it did million years ago, and still will do in a million years. Snow falls where it doesn't really before, and somewhere else it's missing out etc.

I'm not saying a climatic change is good for us, nor that we don't have anything to do with it, just that people should stop crying about global warming when it's not the whole truth, and moreover, not the problem.

How is the global temperature measured anyway? You put a temperature sensor at a lot of places and "tie" them together to get an average value. And basically you must spread them equally over the whole planet, to get a *real* average value.

However, that picture above shows the global network of temperature measuring stations and how long they are recording already, and to me that doesn't look very equally spread, especially seen over the past 150 years, it seems rather we have a concentration of sensors in certain areas, some with cities around containing tons of humans and human stuff that produces heat and passes it to the environment. Regarding the fact that 70% of Earth's surface is covered with water, but most temperature sensors are *not* located over water, how do they want to create a valid, reliable, and representative measuring of Earth's overall "near surface temperature"? Plus, one cannot say the global temperature increased by 3░C in the past XXX years when you base that statement on values that come from a time when there were like only 3 stations recording temperature. At maximum they could say at these 3 places the average temperature increased by 3░C. That might sound like a big number, but what does that mean when we cannot say for sure that there weren't like 10 other places in that time where the average temperature decreased by 1░C. In the end that would mean that the overall temperature of all 13 spots even decreased by a 13th of 1░C.

The point is that under these circumstances given we cannot make a reliable and representative statement like "the Earth is warming up". What we can say is, "where we live, it's getting warmer".

And I personally do not wonder too much why the areas around our cities might heat up with the time, there are cars, and houses with heatings, millions of breathing humans, animals, huge areas of concrete and asphalt roads taking all the heat from the sun, we have wars or huge fireworks with big explosions, solar energy fields and wind power plants, or create huge lakes and thus water surfaces for hydro-power plants. And the list goes on.

I think it's not requiring much to conclude that this also might add to changes in the local climate (which happen anyway), and after all that must have an effect to the whole climatic system of this planet.

Well, you're a little guilty of imposing your bias on them. Their tag line only claims to combat liberal media bias. It nowhere states that they wish to impose conservative/neo-con/facist/communist/liberatarian/ad nauseum views on anyone.

But they are claiming that they are only combating one type of bias. Leftist bias. If they were attempting to filter all biases to get to the basics of the information, I would be more interested in what they have to say. To only go after one form of bias and not both sides sets alarm bells off for me. Thus my point that it is better to go to the source, which is easy enough to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

That can only be inferred by a reader.

But aren't they telling me this? They are exposing leftist bias. So that excludes the left and the center (which also has some left bias by definition). Doesn't that only leave the right?

But this is getting away from the topic of this thread. My only point was that it is better to go to the source, which was in fact provided in that article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Don't know about you, but most scientific/financial/etc literature can be so dry and cumbersome as to leave the layman with his head spinning.

I guess I am different, perhaps because I do have a physics degree. But when it comes to science matters (probably more that some other topics) I always attempt to look at the original information/data or at least summaries from the original authors/researchers, because that is how I was educated. Typically it is "safer" to view the data yourself or get conclusions from the researcher.

If you and others find such topics boring, then that is unfortunate. I agree that things can seem dry. But I found the NASA article quite interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

This then forces most of us to rely on a secondary source for the purposes of interpreting what we consume. Can you truly say that those people won't (consciuosly or otherwise) try to export their bias to us?

To me, conscious and otherwise is important. As I think you said earlier personal biases are going to come into play in any article, and that is a fact of life that has to be taken into consideration. But that is different that actively trying to promote a particular bias and/or attack a specific bias (and we agree it happens on both sides). IMO I think people need to be aware and careful of the latter. I think the Newsbusters.org article is the latter, which is why I ignored it and went to the original NASA article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Ok soooo from 2500 BC to 2007 AS THE TITLE OF THE GRAPH STATES, is not ABOUT 4000 years(ok ABOUT 4500 years, feel better?) Now are you done picking nits?

No! Because presenting the actual data and how it was collected is the whole point and critical to the scientific analysis of what is being presented! How can any of what has been proposed here be scientifically peer reviewed (which is critical to the scientific process) when there is nothing to be reviewed? Nowhere that I have seen do they state why there are only 2-3 data values represented or what the full data set is or how the data was gathered. This information is critical because without it there is to way to verify or refute the claims they are making. For that reason, the chart is utterly useless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Or do you wish to continue the strawman defense.

Can you explain how demanding actual data to be presented is a strawman? Or are what are you referring to exactly? I'm happy to be more specific on anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Just because all of the points are not labeled does not mean that the data is not REPRESENTED.

That is exactly what it means. And by labeled, I mean presented in some way, either as a part of the graph or separately through some other means.

The point is, if we are going to have the (valuable) debate on the causes/existence of climate change, lets at least get all of the data on the table so everyone can see it. If they have evidence that shows what they claim, great! That would be valuable information to include in the debate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

Admittedly I would prefer to have more data be present in the graph, but you cannot dismiss it outright.

I can, and so should you! There is nothing to back up what is being presented here. How can I, you, or anyone else show that this graph hasn't been pulled out of their collective asses? Isn't everyone taught this in science class?

To me, it is the same thing as if I presented this graph:

I have now provided just as much evidence as they have. I have created a chart (granted nowhere near as pretty) and put it on the Internet. That's it. You can't refute my data, because there is no data to refute. I can't confirm their data, because there is no data to confirm.

I hate to belabor the point, but that's Science 101. The Scientific Method requires that the data be presented so that it can be peer reviewed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

They summarized and QUOTED the original text, but you probably didn't even read enough of it to see.

I read the whole thing actually. And then the NASA article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

And judging by the fact that you didn't even know about the originating NASA link within

I misread what the referred NASA article was relating to. I thought that I had missed a NASA link on the original Global Temperatures chart's site. For that, I apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

you just used the typical ad hominem attack that because it has right wing bias, it cannot be credible in any way.

But the article misrepresents what the NASA article is talking about by taking specific snippets out and implies that climate change is bunk. For example, the Newsbusters article makes comments like "Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?" There is nothing in the article that says that NASA is denying climate change. I feel they misrepresented what the NASA article was saying, thus my original comment.

Again, why not just read the NASA article and decide for yourself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat

I don't tell people not to trust them for information, I just tell them to ignore the bias, and go on the FACTS AS PRESENTED.

Isn't that what I said? Go to the facts as presented! It's all right there in NASA's interesting article.

Well considering it has more points represented than the original "Hockey stick" graph(which is marvelously outdated and exceptionally misrepresentative by the way), I cannot understand the issue. Granted the data collected that is represented in the graph however is what is generally peer reviewed(and the hockey stick is one that failed peer review by the way, BUT it doesn't stop global warming sites from pointing to that as fact).

To those that look solely at the global warming sites, check out http://www.junkscience.com for another perspective. The bias is obvious, but then again, it's no more biassed than the global warming sites. Granted it's a bit like getting information on the DNC from the GOP(or for those across the pond, Labor party from the Conservative party), but at least you get a different point of view.

Actually if you look at a lot of the data from multiple sources it almost looks like a calibration phase. Basically instrumentation is way off at first, but after it's settled in, it seems to be leveling off. Honestly would you trust a thermometer from the 1800's? Then again the sites(physical sites not web sites) collecting data for global surface temperature are taking data from places that refused to follow the guidelines set forth for placing temperature gathering equipment. Placing temperature sensors near burn barrels, next to exhaust vents, right next to large slabs of asphalt, etc. It's like checking someone's temperature in a jacuzzi. If the initial data is incorrect, any extrapolations based on that data should be re-evaluated.

And yes the original NASA article was a much more interesting and definately was trying to cater to the GW croud.

.....Thus my point that it is better to go to the source, which is easy enough to do.

But aren't they telling me this? They are exposing leftist bias. So that excludes the left and the center (which also has some left bias by definition). Doesn't that only leave the right?

But this is getting away from the topic of this thread. My only point was that it is better to go to the source, which was in fact provided in that article.

I guess I am different, perhaps because I do have a physics degree. But when it comes to science matters (probably more that some other topics) I always attempt to look at the original information/data or at least summaries from the original authors/researchers, because that is how I was educated. Typically it is "safer" to view the data yourself or get conclusions from the researcher.

If you and others find such topics boring, then that is unfortunate. I agree that things can seem dry. But I found the NASA article quite interesting.

To me, conscious and otherwise is important. As I think you said earlier personal biases are going to come into play in any article, and that is a fact of life that has to be taken into consideration. But that is different that actively trying to promote a particular bias and/or attack a specific bias (and we agree it happens on both sides). IMO I think people need to be aware and careful of the latter. I think the Newsbusters.org article is the latter, which is why I ignored it and went to the original NASA article.

I don't think we're too far apart here. I disagree that fighting leftist bias axiomatically make one a right winger (and vice versa), but agree that going to the source material is a good policy. Then, if you have problems there (outside your background/etc..), you can do further research elsewhere. My point about technical literature was just that many people have a hard time wading through it b/c they lack the education or interest. Like you, I'm capable of dealing with dry and even abstract material but recognize that it's not true of everyone.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

No! Because presenting the actual data and how it was collected is the whole point and critical to the scientific analysis of what is being presented! How can any of what has been proposed here be scientifically peer reviewed (which is critical to the scientific process) when there is nothing to be reviewed? Nowhere that I have seen do they state why there are only 2-3 data values represented or what the full data set is or how the data was gathered. This information is critical because without it there is to way to verify or refute the claims they are making. For that reason, the chart is utterly useless.

As a definative scientific chart, and without the accompanying research possibly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime

Can you explain how demanding actual data to be presented is a strawman? Or are what are you referring to exactly? I'm happy to be more specific on anything..

Primarily I was thinking you were picking nits on the years represented by the graph. And for reference the graph actually DOES go farther back than 1998. 1607. Though we cannot be certain of that. I am not denying that the chart in and of itself is in any way definative, just that it cannot be dismissed outright.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime

That is exactly what it means. And by labeled, I mean presented in some way, either as a part of the graph or separately through some other means..

Well considering the source it may only be for demonstration purposes. and not any form of definative this is how it goes. There are other sites that have a much better argument than this site. Even a few on the Discovery Channel which showed similar trends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime

The point is, if we are going to have the (valuable) debate on the causes/existence of climate change, lets at least get all of the data on the table so everyone can see it. If they have evidence that shows what they claim, great! That would be valuable information to include in the debate..

Agreed, ask the site for the original sources. The original data. Of course again the site itself appears to be little more than a "This is how it works" kinda thing rather than "Lets debunk myths about global warming" type of site. I mean the second graph on the page of images, shows a rather interesting plateau after 1998.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime

I can, and so should you! There is nothing to back up what is being presented here. How can I, you, or anyone else show that this graph hasn't been pulled out of their collective asses? Isn't everyone taught this in science class? .

No, It is not enough to say that since all of the data is not presented we should ignore it. If that's the case then lets ignore about 90% of the global warming data. I mean I could create a labeled graph and plot random points on it and have a scale on it. It doesn't make it right either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime

To me, it is the same thing as if I presented this graph:

I have now provided just as much evidence as they have. I have created a chart (granted nowhere near as pretty) and put it on the Internet. That's it. You can't refute my data, because there is no data to refute. I can't confirm their data, because there is no data to confirm.

I hate to belabor the point, but that's Science 101. The Scientific Method requires that the data be presented so that it can be peer reviewed..

Not if the intend is to provide a general overview to the non-scientific public. Yes, you and I would probably agree that we need the backing data, extrapolation methodology, and all the how-to's to repeat the test exactly to verify it, but then again, we aren't exactly the same as the general public now are we.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime

I read the whole thing actually. And then the NASA article.

I misread what the referred NASA article was relating to. I thought that I had missed a NASA link on the original Global Temperatures chart's site. For that, I apologize.

But the article misrepresents what the NASA article is talking about by taking specific snippets out and implies that climate change is bunk. For example, the Newsbusters article makes comments like "Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?" There is nothing in the article that says that NASA is denying climate change. I feel they misrepresented what the NASA article was saying, thus my original comment.

Again, why not just read the NASA article and decide for yourself?

Isn't that what I said? Go to the facts as presented! It's all right there in NASA's interesting article.

Yes and from what I read, the article can be interpreted in just about any way you wanted. BUT it really put a damper on the Global warming causing Global cooling arguments(whether intentional or not)

Of course I think my main problem with a majority of the global warming debate stems from the most important aspect of the scientific method. Repeatability. A single coincidence does not imply causality(hmm basic science class anyone?). I can say that this year when I turned my lights on more, my house got cooler. It must mean that when I turn my lights on it cools my house, right? And its true, If the time when I turn my lights on for more than 5 hours my house gets colder by at least 5 degrees, does that mean that somehow my lights are causing my house to get colder? Absolutely not. In fact it is because the level of light in my house is lower that I turn my lights on, however it coincides with the time of year that it naturally gets colder.